Johnson v. Lopez
Filing
19
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss 1 Petition Without Prejudice as a Mixed Petition Containing Unexhausted Claims; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Decline to Issue a Certificate of Appealability and to Direct the Clerk to Close the Action; Objections Deadline: Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/22/2011. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 7/26/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ERIC JOHNSON,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
v.
14
RAUL LOPEZ,
15
Respondent.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10-cv—00256-AWI-SKO-HC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AS A MIXED PETITION
CONTAINING UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS
(Docs. 16, 11, 1)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DECLINE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND TO DIRECT THE
CLERK TO CLOSE THE ACTION
OBJECTIONS DEADLINE:
THIRTY (30) DAYS
18
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
20
forma pauperis with a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
21
matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
22
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303.
23
the Court is the petition, which was filed on February 16, 2010.
The
Pending before
24
I.
25
Petitioner is an inmate of the California State Prison at
Background
26
Corcoran serving a sentence of five years and four months for
27
eight counts of indecent exposure in violation of Cal. Pen. Code
28
§ 314.1.
Petitioner challenges various aspects of the trial
1
1
2
proceedings that resulted in his conviction.
On November 24, 2011, the Court found that Petitioner had
3
admitted that only one of his numerous claims had been presented
4
to the California Supreme Court; thus, the petition was a mixed
5
petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims.
6
informed Petitioner that it must dismiss the petition without
7
prejudice unless Petitioner withdrew the unexhausted claims and
8
proceeded with the exhausted claim in lieu of suffering
9
dismissal.
The Court
Petitioner was directed to file a motion to withdraw
10
the unexhausted claims within thirty days.
11
informed that if he did not file such a motion, the Court would
12
assume he desired to return to state court to exhaust the
13
unexhausted claims and would therefore dismiss the petition
14
without prejudice.
15
Petitioner was
The order was served by mail on Petitioner on November 24,
16
2011.
17
motion to withdraw the admittedly unexhausted claims.
18
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2011.
19
19, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed
20
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Over thirty days passed, but Petitioner did not file a
Instead,
On April
21
On May 4, 2011, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause
22
in writing within twenty-one days why the petition should not be
23
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court
24
remedies.
25
Over twenty-one days have passed, but Petitioner has not shown
26
any cause why the petition should not be dismissed as a mixed
27
petition.
28
in which he pointed out that although the time had passed, the
The order was served on Petitioner on the same date.
Instead, on May 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a document
2
1
Court had not dismissed the action, which was prejudicing
2
Petitioner’s right to prosecute an appeal.
(Doc. 17.)
3
II.
4
A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to challenge
5
collaterally a conviction by a petition for writ of habeas corpus
6
must exhaust state judicial remedies.
7
The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and
8
gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the
9
state's alleged constitutional deprivations.
Dismissal of the Petition
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Coleman v.
10
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
11
518 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (9th Cir.
12
1988).
13
A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by
14
providing the highest state court with the necessary jurisdiction
15
a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before
16
presenting it to the federal court, and demonstrating that no
17
state remedy remains available.
18
275-76 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828, 829 (9th Cir.
19
1996).
20
was given a full and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the
21
petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's
22
factual and legal basis.
23
(1995) (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9-10
24
(1992), superceded by statute as stated in Williams v. Taylor,
25
529 U.S. 362 (2000) (factual basis).
26
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,
A federal court will find that the highest state court
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365
Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the
27
state court that he was raising a federal constitutional claim.
28
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669
3
1
(9th Cir. 2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2001); Hiivala
2
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 1999); Keating v. Hood,
3
133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 1998).
4
States Supreme Court reiterated the rule as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In Duncan, the United
In Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275...(1971),
we said that exhaustion of state remedies requires that
petitioners "fairly presen[t]" federal claims to the
state courts in order to give the State the
"'opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged
violations of the prisoners' federal rights" (some
internal quotation marks omitted). If state courts are
to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations
of prisoners' federal rights, they must surely be
alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting
claims under the United States Constitution. If a
habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an evidentiary
ruling at a state court trial denied him the due
process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,
he must say so, not only in federal court, but in state
court.
13
Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-366.
The Ninth Circuit examined the rule
14
further in Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir.
15
2000), as amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th
16
Cir. 2001), stating:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Our rule is that a state prisoner has not "fairly
presented" (and thus exhausted) his federal claims
in state court unless he specifically indicated to
that court that those claims were based on federal law.
See, Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir.
2000). Since the Supreme Court's decision in Duncan,
this court has held that the petitioner must make the
federal basis of the claim explicit either by citing
federal law or the decisions of federal courts, even
if the federal basis is "self-evident," Gatlin v. Madding,
189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v.
Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 7... (1982), or the underlying
claim would be decided under state law on the same
considerations that would control resolution of the claim
on federal grounds, see, e.g., Hiivala v. Wood, 195
F.3d 1098, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Zenon,
88 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1996); Crotts, 73 F.3d
at 865.
...
In Johnson, we explained that the petitioner must alert
the state court to the fact that the relevant claim is a
federal one without regard to how similar the state and
4
1
federal standards for reviewing the claim may be or how
obvious the violation of federal law is.
2
Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668-69 (9th Cir. 2000), as
3
amended by Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 904, 904-05 (9th Cir.
4
2001).
5
Where none of a petitioner’s claims has been presented to
6
the highest state court as required by the exhaustion doctrine,
7
the Court must dismiss the petition.
Raspberry v. Garcia, 448
8
F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006); Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,
9
481 (9th Cir. 2001).
Further, where some claims are exhausted
10
and others are not (i.e., a “mixed” petition), the Court must
11
dismiss the petition without prejudice to give Petitioner an
12
opportunity to exhaust the claims if he can do so.
Rose, 455
13
U.S. at 510, 521-22; Calderon v. United States Dist. Court
14
(Gordon), 107 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1997), en banc, cert.
15
denied, 118 S.Ct. 265 (1997); Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d
16
1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1794 (1997).
17
However, the Court must give a petitioner an opportunity to amend
18
a mixed petition to delete the unexhausted claims and permit
19
review of properly exhausted claims.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at
20
520; Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981,
21
986 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 920 (1998); James v.
22
Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000).
23
Here, the petition is admittedly a mixed petition.
24
Petitioner has been given an opportunity to amend the petition to
25
withdraw the unexhausted claims to permit review of the properly
26
exhausted claim.
However, Petitioner has not withdrawn the
27
unexhausted claims.
The Court concludes that Petitioner desires
28
5
1
to return to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims.
2
Therefore, it will be recommended that the petition be dismissed
3
without prejudice.
4
III.
5
Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
Certificate of Appealability
6
appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the Court of Appeals
7
from the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the
8
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state
9
court.
10
11
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
A certificate of appealability may issue only if the
12
applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
13
constitutional right.
14
petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether
15
the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
16
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement
17
to proceed further.
18
(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
19
certificate should issue if the Petitioner shows that jurists of
20
reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
21
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
22
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
23
court was correct in any procedural ruling.
24
529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).
25
§ 2253(c)(2).
Under this standard, a
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 336
A
Slack v. McDaniel,
In determining this issue, a court conducts an overview of
26
the claims in the habeas petition, generally assesses their
27
merits, and determines whether the resolution was debatable among
28
jurists of reason or wrong.
Id.
It is necessary for an
6
1
applicant to show more than an absence of frivolity or the
2
existence of mere good faith; however, it is not necessary for an
3
applicant to show that the appeal will succeed.
4
Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 338.
Miller-El v.
5
A district court must issue or deny a certificate of
6
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
7
applicant.
8
9
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Here, it does not appear that reasonable jurists could
debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a
10
different manner.
11
of the denial of a constitutional right.
12
13
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing
Accordingly, it will be recommended that the Court decline
to issue a certificate of appealability.
14
IV.
15
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
16
1)
Recommendations
The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED
17
without prejudice because it is a mixed petition containing both
18
exhausted and unexhausted claims; and
19
20
2) The Court DECLINE to issue a certificate of
appealability; and
21
3)
22
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the
23
United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant
24
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of
25
the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,
26
Eastern District of California.
27
being served with a copy, any party may file written objections
28
with the Court and serve a copy on all parties.
The Clerk be DIRECTED to close the action.
Within thirty (30) days after
7
Such a document
1
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
2
and Recommendations.”
3
and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if
4
served by mail) after service of the objections.
5
then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
6
636 (b)(1)(C).
7
objections within the specified time may waive the right to
8
appeal the District Court’s order.
9
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Replies to the objections shall be served
The Court will
The parties are advised that failure to file
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
ie14hj
June 22, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?